No, @rtmcdge, I am “forgetting” nothing.
It is you who is “forgetting” that stating that “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged” is not the same as rejecting all aspects of “Darwinism”.
When you make such basic errors of logic, you should hardly be surprised that people treat you as “some child”, “or teenager”, or “some illiterate person” (to use your own words).
If you want a more specific rebuttal of your claim:
-
Michael Behe is a signatory of aSDfD
-
Michael Behe explicitly rejects Darwinism.
-
Michael Behe explicitly accepts Common Descent.
Evolutionary mechanisms beyond “random mutation and natural selection” include Genetic Drift (aka ‘Neutral Theory’), Recombination and Gene Flow.
The fact that you do not know this is further evidence what you have not in fact been stydying evolution for “years”.
-
Whether or not Darwin was or was not “a diploma carrying scientist” is irrelevant to my point that your claim that your claim that there are “thousands of scientists who reject universal common descent” is not substantiated by the petition.
-
The substance of your claim has already been rebutted by @Roy here. That you are repeating this debunked claim is further evidence of your dishonesty.
Prestige is no guarantee that all a scientist’s claims have scientific merit. There have been a number of even Nobel Prize-winning scientists who have advocated scientifically disreputable ideas.
And you have provided no evidence that any great number of the scientists on that petition are “prestigious”, let alone that their prestige is in a relevant field of expertise.
How many “biologists, and microbiologists”? “Chemists”, unless they are biochemists, and those who “hold more than one degree in the sciences”, unless one of those degrees is in biology, are irrelevant.
-
You have provided no evidence that any such scientists exist.
-
Although it is likely that at least some exist, it is also likely that they are an insignificant minority of scientists.
This can be seen from the shear number of scientific organisation that reject ID:
-
That is not a particularly impressive CV.
-
You have failed to demonstrate that Bechly actually rejects Common Descent – a number of aSDfD signatories don’t reject it.